Epstein file photo of Chomsky with Steve Bannon

From Freedom News UK

Even if Chomsky knew nothing of Epstein’s sex crimes, being chummy with arch-fascist Steve Bannon is unforgivable

~ Kell w Farshéa ~

What was it about multi-millionaire Jeffrey Epstein that enabled a highly-educated senior professor at one of the top fee-paying universities in the world to turn a blind eye to rumours circulating about his taste for teen girls?

Let’s be frank: no one was surprised when JK Rowldemort appeared in the files, inviting Epstein to her Harry Potter-inspired show. Nor when she tried to quietly delete the logs of her yacht. She is a serious transphobe who puts children’s lives in danger through her funding of hate campaigns, and whose books and films were filled with racist and antisemitic tropes. But Chomsky? Old libertarian professor and proclaimed public intellectual?

When Norman Finkelstein was invited to hang out with Alan Dershowitz and Epstein by Robert Trivers in 2015, he replied: “My guess is, if Epstein put your daughter at age 15 in such a position, you wouldn’t publicly describe him as a ‘friend’ and person of ‘integrity.’ In fact, I would hope that you’d promptly throttle both Epstein and Dershowitz.”

So how were the Chomskys so secluded in their ivory tower that they hadn’t heard these rumours when Noam attended the town house soirées in 2015?

Epstein had spent jail time for trafficking a minor in 2008 but his wife Valeria wants us all to believe that 7 years later they were still naïve, trusting innocents duped by the brilliant con man. Her whole explanation depends on Noam’s idealism and goodness – a man who was an expert in linguistics and the machinations of the American state, but somehow in other respects an innocent abroad. So either Valeria was also equally naïve, or the couple simply didn’t have the moral backbone of Norman Finkelstein.

What’s striking about her text is how little there is in it about her own responsibility, knowledge or complicity.

I don’t believe Chomsky went to sex parties or the island. But he and Valeria did go to Epstein’s town house and the Zorro Ranch (which is now being exposed as another hell hole for teenage child abuse). And remember, Chomsky is in the files “fantasising about the Caribbean island”. So he and Valeria certainly were fellow travellers and hangers on at the rich, well-connected events of an exceptionally revolting man.

Even if we are to believe Noam and Valeria, wandering through parties of rich and powerful people, all friends of the generous Mr Epstein, that they knew nothing about his sexual offences; What then of that 3 hour lunch brokered by Epstein? The one Valeria hasn’t apologised for and is seriously hoping we haven’t noticed?

Because as the pictures show, Chomsky, libertarian scold of American imperialism and hero to many on the left and anarchism, struck up an acquaintance with an unlikely friend at those notorious gatherings. Enter, stage right: Steve Bannon.

No one expected Chomsky to appear in the files, and absolutely no one expected him to be a drinking buddy with an international fascist. What were the Chomskys doing hosting him on 10 February 2019 for lunch? Bannon, who was not only in Trump’s first cabinet, but spent years building links between far right and fascist parties across Europe and North America. Bannon of Breitbart, of nativist white supremacy.

They can’t pretend they had never heard of Bannon. And this isn’t just awkward photos at parties. It was an actual 3 hour lunch. With an actual fascist. Perhaps it was that conceit. That as liberal intellectuals, tenured professors, you can talk to people across the divide in a civilised truce, no matter how disgusting they are, in the name of intellectual discourse and objective curiosity. That as one of world’s ‘public intellectuals’ Chomsky had a free pass to sit and chat to an international fascist organiser. And Valeria, what did she do? Was she there at the table? Or was she washing her hands repeatedly in the bathroom?

It makes me vomit to think that while anarchists, anti-imperialists and antifascists held Noam Chomsky in some regard for decades, were quoting his books and paying him dues – he and his wife were chit-chatting over lunch with a powerful fascist organiser. After WW2, people who had collaborated with the Nazis were dragged into the streets, their heads were shaved and they were paraded for all to see. I’d really like to know why we shouldn’t fetch the clippers.

(Remembering all the victims of Epstein and in particular Ava Cordero, a 16 year old trans girl he abused in 1999-2001 and who was then disbelieved, abused and trashed by the media protecting him).

Comments

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 02/13/2026 - 17:00

True, it's not acceptable for an anarchist to have an actual three hour lunch with an actual fascist. It's only acceptable for an anarchist to join an actual fascist military formation of the Ukrainian state and downplay the history of the OUN/UPA who did an actual pogrom and said they wanted to work with actual Hitler. That's fine. What Chomsky did though is off limits.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 02/15/2026 - 21:07

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

A false dichotomy would be if the fascism in one instance was ok but not in the other. In reality, fascism is wrong in both cases. A straw man would be if there weren't really any anarchists joining fascist military formations and downplaying fascists in Ukraine. In reality, there very much are. Learn something before you speak.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 02/13/2026 - 17:46

Yet another character assassination attempt, period.

But, for those whom have paid close attention to Chomsky's writings, this is what he was "hoping" for, to FIND OUT if he was still a THORN in the side of the Status Quo. Because, he said, if he was doing something right, the Status Quo would ATTACK HIM. And their usual "modus operandi" is CHARACTER ASSASSINATION! But if he was not, they would faun over him and call him "Respected". Which went on for some recent years.

For me, I was starting to think he was NOT viewed as such a "THORN" and that's alright by me; at his age, he DESERVES to be revered (i.e. by the university community he frequents these days, which has given him at least a few standing ovations after his speeches). But THIS HYPE proves to me that HE'S STILL A DAMN GOOD THORN IN THE SIDE of the Status Quo, AFTER ALL!!

But, OH NO, he's "fraternizing" with POLITICALLY INCORRECT FIGURES!! HOW NAUGHTY OF HIM!! How IDEOLOGICALLY INCORRECT!!

When, i would think, he's simply INTELLECTUALLY TAKING ON such persons as Bannon and Epstein, whom are/were a very good example of STATUS QUO INTERNALIZED VALUES! This, just like he takes on probably ANYONE who invites him!!

I know because he EVEN wrote back to a close friend of mine, several times, even when he repeatedly said they were on "different wavelengths" and refused to continue to get letters from him on the topic that i touch on below! This, while pretty much everyone my friend knows (who he told this to) were totally mystified! Saying: "Why would HE write to YOU?" (As if my friend is THAT much of a NUT!)

Bottom line, about 30 years ago, in this series of letters, my friend, whose name is Chuck (and is quite OUT internationally, on these topics) challenged him on this actual topic, tho on the consensual, liberating, but systematically suppressed side of this topic (not the sneaky, coercive, rapist side, which is ONLY heard in Big Media). But Chomsky would have none of it, reacting quite moralistically! And he actually tried to justify defending his anti position by saying that *HE* NEVER NOTICED kids showing him that kind of interest! (Well, imagine that, intro'd as he is to likely even his grandkids! The BIG Time, world renowned academic and all...duh!)

Sure, he read over a text of Chuck's which you can read yourself, here: https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/dodson_media_coltrol_frame.htm, and then gave a blurb to him ("Much enjoyed", he said, as part of a slightly longer sentence, and Chuck published it with the manuscript). But his antipathy to the topic was categorical, even with teenagers (where several First World nations, like Germany, have an AOC ("age of consent") of 14, last I heard. Wouldn't even sign, unlike Howard Zinn, a hardly Too Radical 'call' to bring critical thought on this fully hysterified topic. I'd link to that but cannot find it (even tho i saw it quite recently!)

So my take is that he was totally against the issue, and repeatedly told my friend Chuck that he didn't understand what Chuck was saying on this issue! So I have to REALLY wonder about people trying to link him to this "ring".

But then again, it's kind of an interesting situation to happen. Maybe he'll be forced now to look into the issue more thoughtfully and respond with some nuances that OUGHT to be heard!! He can sure reach a lot more people than you and i! Or even Chuck! And Chomsky has spent his entire life, almost, promoting critical thinking in general, soooo, let's see how deep he dares dive!!

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 02/13/2026 - 18:02

comment originally posted on Reddit Anarchism: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1qzin2k/val%C3%A9ria_chomskys_statement_on_jeffrey_epstein/

As most people know Noam Chomsky suffered a stroke in 2023 and isn't cognizant enough to respond, but his wife Valéria sent this to Aaron Mate;


As many are aware, my husband, Noam Chomsky, now 97, is confronting significant health challenges after suffering a devastating stroke in June 2023. Currently, Noam is under 24/7 medical care and is completely unable to speak or engage in public discourse.

Since this health crisis, I have been entirely absorbed in Noam’s treatment and recovery, solely responsible for him and his medical treatment. Noam and I don’t have any kind of public relations assistance. For this reason, only now have I been able to address the matter of our contacts with Jeffrey Epstein.

Noam and I have felt a profound weight regarding the unresolved questions surrounding our past interactions with Epstein. We do not wish to leave this chapter shrouded in ambiguity.

Throughout his life, Noam has insisted that intellectuals have a responsibility to speak the truth and expose lies — especially when those truths are uncomfortable to themselves.

As is widely known, one of Noam’s characteristics is to believe in the good faith of people. Noam’s overly trust[ing] nature, in this specific case, led to severe poor judgment on both our parts.

Questions have rightly been raised about Noam’s meetings with Epstein, and about administrative assistance his office provided regarding a private financial matter—one that had absolutely no relation to any of Epstein’s criminal conduct.

Noam and I were introduced to Epstein at the same time, during one of Noam’s professional events in 2015, when Epstein’s 2008 conviction in the State of Florida was known by very few people, while most of the public – including Noam and I – was unaware of it. That only changed after the November 2018 report by Miami Herald.

When we were introduced to Epstein, he presented himself as a philanthropist of science and a financial expert. By presenting himself this way, Epstein gained Noam’s attention, and they began corresponding. Unknowingly, we opened a door to a Trojan horse.

Epstein began to encircle Noam, sending gifts and creating opportunities for interesting discussions in areas Noam has been working on extensively. We regret that we did not perceive this as a strategy to ensnare us and to try to undermine the causes Noam stands for.

We had lunch, at Epstein’s ranch, once, in connection with a professional event; we attended dinners at his townhouse in Manhattan and stayed a few times in an apartment he offered when we visited New York City. We also visited Epstein’s Paris apartment one afternoon for the occasion of a work trip. In all cases, these visits were related to Noam’s professional commitments. We never went to his island or knew about anything that happened there.

We attended social meetings, lunches, and dinners where Epstein was present and academic matters were discussed. We never witnessed any inappropriate, criminal, or reproachable behavior from Epstein or others. At no time did we see children or underage individuals present.

Epstein proposed meetings between Noam and figures that Noam had interest in, due to their different perspectives on themes related to Noam’s work and thought. It was in this academic context that Noam wrote a letter of recommendation.

Noam’s email to Epstein, in which Epstein sought advice about the press, should be read in context. Epstein had claimed to Noam that he [Epstein] was being unfairly persecuted, and Noam spoke from his own experience in political controversies with the media. Epstein created a manipulative narrative about his case, which Noam, in good faith, believed in. It is now clear that it was all orchestrated, having as, at least, one of Epstein’s intentions to try to have someone like Noam repairing Epstein’s reputation by association.

Noam’s criticism was never directed at the women’s movement; on the contrary, he has always supported gender equity and women’s rights. What happened was that Epstein took advantage of Noam’s public criticism towards what came to be known as “cancel culture” to present himself as a victim of it.

Only after Epstein’s second arrest in [July] 2019 did we learn the full extent and gravity of what were then accusations—and are now confirmed—heinous crimes against women and children. We were careless in not thoroughly researching his background. This was a grave mistake, and for that lapse in judgment, I apologize on behalf of both of us. Noam shared with me, before his stroke, that he felt the same way.

In 2023, Noam’s initial public response to inquiries about Epstein failed to adequately acknowledge the gravity of Epstein’s crimes and the enduring pain of his victims, primarily because Noam took it as obvious that he condemned such crimes. However, a firm and explicit stance on such matters is always required.

It was deeply disturbing for both of us to realize we had engaged with someone who presented as a helpful friend but led a hidden life of criminal, inhumane, and perverted acts.

Since the revelation of the extent of his crimes, we have been shocked.

In order to clarify the check: Epstein asked Noam to develop a linguistic challenge that Epstein wished to establish as a regular prize. Noam worked on it, and Epstein sent a check for US$20,000 as payment. Epstein’s office contacted me to arrange for the check to be sent to our home address.

Regarding the reported transfer of approximately $270,000, I must clarify that these were entirely Noam’s own funds. At the time, Noam had identified inconsistencies in his retirement resources that threatened his economic independence and caused him great distress. Epstein offered technical assistance to resolve this specific situation.

On this matter, Epstein acted accordingly, recovering the funds for Noam, in a display of help and very likely as part of a machination to gain greater access to Noam. Epstein acted solely as a financial advisor for this specific matter. To the best of my knowledge, Epstein never had access to our bank or investment accounts.

It is also important to clarify that Noam and I never had any investments with Epstein or his office—individually or as a couple.

I hope this retrospectively clarifies and explains Noam Chomsky’s interactions with Epstein. Noam and I recognize the gravity of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and the profound suffering of his victims. Nothing in this statement is intended to minimize that suffering, and we express our unrestricted solidarity with the victims.

February 7, 2026.

Valéria Chomsky

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 02/14/2026 - 05:55

chomsky is scum and irredeemable... but the absurd counterfactual smear of jk rowling as an esptein associate is only humorous and delegitimizes the rest of the piece.

i dont agree with her views but at some point the few surviving people violently obsessed with her will have to accept that she is just not that important a political figure to 99.999999999999% of people in the world and that trying to shoehorn her into every possible atrocity worldwide just sounds like the kind of boomer facebook derangement that claims george soros is paying for every protest

SirEinzige Sat, 02/14/2026 - 07:33

For me it was the Daniel Everett affair where the Chomsky acolytes used the Brazilian state to stop DE from making further contact with the Piraha. If he new about it than that to me is unbecoming of even being a good liberal. This seems to be icing on the cake even though it might not be THAT bad.

My position on the Epstein affair is that I think that the likes of Michael Tracey and Richard Hannania and other critics like them are at the very least half right. Much of the the disgust in regards to the E-Files essentially comes down to age based paternalism. For me I focus on what were concrete cases of rape and rapacious domination which there clearly were. I do not fall for the overall hysteria however.

While old rich men get away with things nobody should get away with, they also get away with things that should be allowed.

PS I would love to hear Bob Black's take on Chomsky. He's been all about defacing him for years and now it's finally happened. Is that nigga even still alive.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 02/14/2026 - 11:01

As much as the holier-than-though fuckwits at Freedom slag off Chomsky, their bookshop *continues* to sell his books.
Here's a serious suggestion to all anarchist booksellers, especially Freedom: bin their current stock of Chomsky books and donate all of the money they have made from his writings over the years to their nearest women's refuge.
Bunch of sanctimonious fucking parasites.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 02/15/2026 - 02:48

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

idk it sounds cringe and performative... and i'm a chomsky hater. what, nobody else whose books they sell was a fucked-up person? this consumermaxxed priority on ideological purity is a dead end

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 02/15/2026 - 07:14

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

The point is these anarcho-left types seemingly CAN'T refrain from promoting and publishing him. They take him as anarchist author despite all the obvious indications he isn't, including his own dismissal.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 02/15/2026 - 03:54

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

It's kinda fucked how so many anarcho-leftists appear to be on a lifetime legally-binding contract to promote and sell Chumpsky, despite all the critics and recent Epstein exposure. Is that a thing!?

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 02/14/2026 - 15:10

Who is Chomsky's latest wife? What is her background before meeting Chomsky (at age 85)? I was reading the Glen Greenwald substack's comments section and found that question. The writer thinking that it might be a good idea to look into Chomsky's wife for any possible connection to Mossad, etc.

Lefou (not verified) Sun, 02/15/2026 - 06:21

Very disturbing, I am beyond hatred for some people, I humbly continue doing my light headed anarch thing knowing that I am a more authentic anarch than Chomsky is, sigh.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Sun, 02/15/2026 - 13:06

It is pretty clear that Chomsky and his wife showed very poor judgment about Epstein, which Valarie Chomsky has admitted. They knew him as a rich philanthropist in the arts and sciences. Epstein after all was a master con artist, an expert at worming his way into the social circles of prominent people for his own ends.

I did not agree with everything Chomsky wrote and did even before this news. However it did not stop me from respecting and even admiring the good work he otherwise did. Millions have had their eyes opened by Chomsky about the crimes of imperialism, capitalism, the state, Israel, Leninism, and other forces. Shall we condemn him for this error (associating with Epstein in a non-criminal fashion)? Yes we should condemn his bad judgment and behavior in this matter, but not reject everything he has done and contributed. There are few people who are perfectly correct on all matters (not me or even you).

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 02/16/2026 - 01:33

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

That article, as seen in the pic, wasn't only about his meeting with Epstein... Like wtf was he doing inviting Bannon to a posh dinner?

But how many poors and other victims of capitalism did he also *not* invite for a meal? Any anarchist ever just went to his house for a tea?

Just a supporter of capitalist rats.

SirEinzige Mon, 02/16/2026 - 02:17

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

his contributions aren't all that great. The fact of the matter is he's a crude modernist thinker who's epistemic framework are not even any good for anarchy.

The whole Daniel Everett affair is based on his absurd idea of universal grammar which is a very non anarchic(and incorrect) idea of human language. He was an early backer of E.O. Wilson in the mid-1970s. Wilson's ideas have essentially contributed to much of reactionary western authoritarianism today. If you look at Chomsky's interests in regards to help from Epstein(revealed in the files) they aren't exactly germane to anarchism.

His criticisms were never all that radical compared to anarchists who came before and after him. He was essentially a corporatist age leftist who believed in the welfare state and other things that are not good for anarchism/anarchy. As Bob Black correctly states, Chomsky is the most famous anarchist in the world who is not an anarchist. Given what he may or may not have known on the actions of the University of Brasilia he might not even have been the best liberal/leftist.

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 02/16/2026 - 04:02

In reply to by SirEinzige

...but this is one of SE's rare "broken clock" moments.

Chumpsky's been just not enough beneficial to actual anarchist theory to be worth defending in this current scandal. His past track record of standing by Holocaust-deniers is also into line with this meeting he had with Bannon, which doesn't make him a Neonazi or fascist, but...

Hoping that some anarcho-lefties are smart enough to be leaving this sinking ship before it's completely sunk, as sooner or later each of those "anarchist" infoshops will have to be the next to be cancelled over supporting a defender of fascists and sex traffickers. As Chomsky's "bad choices" have already hit the mainstream. Being part of the crowd that pushed the "cancel culture"... that'll be pretty discomforting to have a taste of their own medicine.

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 02/16/2026 - 07:37

In reply to by SirEinzige

continue to explain about eo wilson? all i remember is the thesis of consilience, of "how might we change science and humanities so that they fit together again?"

SirEinzige Mon, 02/16/2026 - 10:48

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson

In a nutshell he linked himself up with the likes of Philippe Rushton and the other hard hereditarian racialist ideologues and they used his work as a foundation for their views. He is on the other side Lewontin and Gould when it comes to nature and culture.

There's much in Chomsky's theory of language that has trappings in these reactionary directions.

Lefou (not verified) Mon, 02/16/2026 - 19:38

In reply to by SirEinzige

Jeezus, didn't know he aligned with Rushton, that's the final nail in the coffin for Chomp's legitimacy as anarchist and his total failure to address deterministic attitudes regarding the societal fabric of bio-equity.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/17/2026 - 09:06

In reply to by SirEinzige

from wiki:
"argued that free will is an illusion"

haha well that's very mr smart guy, but first you have to prove why this argument merits being made at all! taahaahaa!

i mean, in earnesty, maybe at his time he wasnt exposed to quantum physics enough to realize the indeterminacy of certain entities? i understand the inclination of some to bring up evidence for determinacy, but if the universe itself is the only calculator large enough to calculate itself, then it's kinda beside the point

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/17/2026 - 14:22

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

It's called "determinism". And it got pretty much refutated during the 20th century, despite some aberrant, anachronistic attempts by the likes of that Malthusian Rushton, and yes, Chumpsky. Explaining away culture with biological determinism is just plain bad theory that belongs to the 19th century. Just a more articulate way to ham-fist "human nature" into every manifestation of human activity.

Humans are definitely constructivist beings... and the sociobiology bigots are among the best examples of it.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 02/15/2026 - 13:30

In my opinion, also as a character of knowledge, Chomsky wanted to use a methodology of participant/direct observation to know the system so as to be able to unmask and criticize it more accurately.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 02/15/2026 - 21:51

"No one expected Chomsky to appear in the files" [citation needed]

"and absolutely no one expected him to be a drinking buddy with an international fascist." [citation needed]

"How could this happen?!" about a wealthy tenured professor who was a longtime voter for the same party-machine as Epstein is just white ignorance in action.

There's already been discussion here of his liberal zionism.

https://anarchistnews.org/comment/69939#comment-69939

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/17/2026 - 18:22

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

This is meager and picky but I always thought chomsky's reaction to aaron swatrz's suicide caused by the govt was disappointing. In the documentary The Internet's Own Boy, he says "I think mit should've done more" and that's it. It came off (to me then) as 'oh well ... back to work.'

That said, chomsky helped me as a student many years ago when I reached out for specific research help.

he used to crack me up by saying things like, " I decided to perform an act of masochism the other day ... so I turned on NPR."

but I've also been raped and sexually assaulted .... so, fuck him I guess

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 02/16/2026 - 11:28

y’all should be skewering him for palling around with the elite first and foremost. also i’m not sure how much his politics ever got beyond typical liberal handwringing about how democracy is not really democratic enough yet or something

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 02/16/2026 - 14:14

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

STFU and stop including me. I wrote in another comment that Chomsky seems to have only invited establishment people, including fascists, to his dinners, and not even the anarchists that are so hardcore into him. Has Wayne Price even got the golden chance!? I fear he just had the loose change.

As his debouncing of US imperialism... duh, who else has done that and yet isn't a staple item in anarcho-leftie infoshops worldwide? Michael Moore... Maoists... Chris Hedges...

Hundreds of millions of people worldwide never needed this MIT pseudo-intellectual to know how the US has deeply fucked up their countries, and their lives.

And if he'd be anywhere a honest person (I don't believe he ever was), at his age the most decent thing he could do for his fans, at his age, would be to come clean with all these more-than-suspicious comraderies he had, especially with Epstein and Bannon. Time will tell! Yet he's got little time left...

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 02/16/2026 - 15:41

Many decades ago, during the 1980s, my understanding was that if you wrote to Chomsky with a coherent point to make, he would respond -- and not with a form letter. He would respond to your point in his letter to you.

In those days this somewhat ultra-left Marxist guy I knew in Berkeley whose real point of reference was hippie shit and the Greatful Dead wrote Chomsky, mildly criticizing the fact that Chomsky made endless nebulous comments about capitalism without ever specifically attacking wage labor and commodity production -- and saying loudly that the way forward is antithetical to electoral politics, that we need a mass social movement, akin somewhat to the old IWW that will topple this social order in a full-scale social revolution.

The professor wrote back, adamant that he would absolutely never do anything like that.

Chomsky has been a long term confirmation of the insights of the S.I. and others that a critique that does not get to the root of the problem serves to strengthen the social order. This Epstein and Bannon stuff is still shocking. But it speaks volumes about the practical worthlessnes of Chomsky's nebulous left libertarianism and with this as n absense of extremely rudimentary practical political chops.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 02/18/2026 - 11:28

ok. not a fan of chumpsky. he's a glorified liberal. never had any use for him or his writing, which only directed towards reform of the system.
but,
99% of (so-called) anarchists are the most moralistic pieces of shit the planet has ever witnessed. just waiting to jump on people who seem to have fallen from their morals.
they are the flip-side of Proud Boys and fascists
they are morality cops, NOT, sadly and unfortunately, breathing anarchy.
Anarchy must be found elsewhere.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Wed, 02/18/2026 - 16:58

OK, many criticisms may be made about Chomsky. But many criticisms may also be made about the early ("classic") anarchists, who started the movement.

Proudhon, besides being a reformist, was an extreme misogynist and homophobe.

Bakunin wrote anti-semitic and racist anti-German texts, especially when arguing with Marx.

Kropotkin supported the imperialist allies in World War I. After the war, he opposed a socialist revolution in Russia, any kind of socialist revolution (even an anarchist one),

You get the idea. The question is not whether we can find some big errors in their lives and work. It is, are there important things we can learn from them? even after we correct for their mistakes? Have they made major contributions? (After all, unlike Marxists, anarchists do not worship any Great Thinker; we are not Proudhonists, Bakuninists, or Kropotkinites.)

Of course some anarchists on this list do not think that Chomsky made important contributions. I disagree, and suggest reviewing his writings on U.S. imperialism, media, Zionism, and many other topics.

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
U
H
@
$
#
8
m
$
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.